Why solar radiation management geoengineering and democracy won’t mix

In this paper we argue that recent policy treatments of solar radiation management (SRM) have insufficiently addressed its potential implications for contemporary political systems. Exploring the emerging ‘social constitution’ of SRM, we outline four reasons why this is likely to pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics: that the unequal distribution of and uncertainties about SRM impacts will cause conflicts within existing institutions; that SRM will act at the planetary level and necessitate autocratic governance; that the motivations for SRM will always be plural and unstable; and that SRM will become conditioned by economic forces

Rejecting acceptance: learning from public dialogue on self-driving vehicles

Abstract The investment and excitement surrounding self-driving vehicles are huge. We know from earlier transport innovations that technological transitions can reshape lives, livelihoods, and places in profound ways. There is therefore a case for wide democratic debate, but how should this take place? In this paper, we explore the tensions between democratic experiments and technological ones with a focus on policy for nascent self-driving/automated vehicles. We describe a dominant model of public engagement that imagines increased public awareness leading to acceptance and then adoption of the technology. We explore the flaws in this model, particularly in how it treats members of the public as users rather than citizens and the presumption that the technology is well-defined. Analysing two large public dialogue exercises in which we were involved, our conclusion is that public dialogue can contribute to shifting established ideas about both technologies and the public, but that this reframing demands openness on the part of policymakers and other stakeholders. Rather than seeing public dialogues as individual exercises, it would be better to evaluate the governance of emerging technologies in terms of whether it takes place ‘in dialogue’

We need a Weizenbaum test for AI

Alan Turing introduced his 1950 paper on Computing Machinery and Intelligence with the question “Can machines think?” But rather than engaging in what he regarded as never-ending subjective debate about definitions of intelligence, he instead proposed a thought experiment. His “imitation game” offered a test in which an evaluator held conversations with a human and a computer. If the evaluator failed to tell them apart, the computer could be said to have exhibited artificial intelligence (AI)

What does it mean to trust a technology?

A survey published in October 2023 revealed what seemed to be a paradox. Over the past decade, self-driving vehicles have improved immeasurably, but public trust in the technology is low and falling. Only 37% of Americans said they would be comfortable riding in a self- driving vehicle, down from 39% in 2022 and 41% in 2021. Those that have used the technology express more enthusiasm, but the rest have seemingly had their confidence shaken by the failure of the technology to live up to its hype

Viral Suppression

When Facebook’s fact-checkers slapped a “missing context” label on a venerable medical journal’s article about breached vaccine trial protocols, they set off a very twenty-first-century fight about who should play what role in scientific communication

The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks

UK scientific advice on the possible health risks of mobile phones has embraced (or seems to be embracing) broader engagement with interested non-experts. This paper explains the context of lost credibility that made such a development necessary, and the implications of greater engagement for the construction (and expert control) of “public concern.” I narrate how scientific advice matured from an approach based on compliance with guidelines to a style of “public science” in which issues such as trust and democracy were intertwined with scientific risk assessment. This paper develops existing conceptions of the “public understanding of science” with an explanation based around the co-production of scientific and social order. Using a narrative drawn from a series of in-depth interviews with scientists and policymakers, I explain how expert reformulation of the state of scientific uncertainty within a public controversy reveals constructions of “The Public,” and the desired extent of their engagement. Constructions of the public changed at the same time as a construction of uncertainty as solely an expert concern was molded into a state of politically workable public uncertainty. This paper demonstrates how publics can be constructed as instruments of credible policymaking, and suggests the potential for public alienation if non-experts feel they have not been fairly represented

Experiments outside the lab come with new responsibilities

St. Ives is an idyllic seaside town on the southwest tip of England. It is a magnet for holidaymakers and artists. In early 2023, its residents were surprised to find that their beloved bay had become the location for an experiment. A technology start-up called Planetary Technologies had gained permission from the local water company to add magnesium hydroxide to a wastewater outlet pipe and pump it a mile offshore. Some within the community were outraged to find out from a national newspaper not only about the planned release of the chemicals, but that a small test had already happened the previous September. That April 2023, more than 300 protesters gathered on the beach, some with slogans on their surfboards. Most of them were concerned about the risks to their ecosystem and its crabs, seals, and lobsters. On finding out more about the company and its ambitions, some of the protesters started to see the experiment in a new light

AI has a democracy problem. Citizens' assemblies can help

When it comes to making decisions about artificial intelligence (AI), Eric Schmidt is very clear. In 2023, the former Google CEO told NBC's Meet the Press, "there's no way a nonindustry person can understand what is possible. It's just too new, too hard, there's not the expertise." But if, as Schmidt believes, AI will be the next industrial revolution, then the technology is too important to be left to technology companies. AI poses huge challenges for democratic societies, and the decisions on it are currently being made by a very small group of people. Realizing the opportunities of AI, understanding its risks, and steering it toward the public interest will require a large dose of public participation

Technological risks are not the end of the world

There’s a scene in the movie Oppenheimer in which the protagonist is trying to explain to General Groves, his military overseer, the hazards of their endeavour. Groves asks Oppenheimer, "Are you saying there's a chance that when we push that button, we destroy the world?" The physicist says, "The chances are near zero." When Groves, understandably alarmed, asks for clarification, Oppenheimer responds, "What do you want from theory alone?